Mark Prince give this a listen:

[Grapesoda]

Publisher's Summary


This is a study of how intellectuals as a class affect modern societies by shaping the climate of opinion in which official policies develop, on issues ranging from economics to law to war and peace.

The thesis of Intellectuals and Society is that the influence of intellectuals is not only greater than in previous eras but also takes a very different form from that envisioned by those like Machiavelli and others who have wanted to directly influence rulers. It has not been by shaping the opinions or directing the actions of the holders of power that modern intellectuals have most influenced the course of events, but by shaping public opinion in ways that affect the actions of power holders in democratic societies, whether or not those power holders accept the general vision or the particular policies favored by intellectuals. Even government leaders with disdain or contempt for intellectuals have had to bend to the climate of opinion shaped by those intellectuals.

Intellectuals and Society not only examines the track record of intellectuals in the things they have advocated but also analyzes the incentives and constraints under which their views and visions have emerged. One of the most surprising aspects of this study is how often intellectuals have been proved not only wrong, but grossly and disastrously wrong in their prescriptions for the ills of society-- and how little their views have changed in response to empirical evidence of the disasters entailed by those views.

?2009 Thomas Sowell; (P)2009 Blackstone Audio, Inc.

http://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-...=thomas+sowell


read the reviews on the book than read it yourself...

[2MuchMark]

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by **********

in other words you prefer to post unsupported facts and liberal fantasies as proof or your ideological understandings of the USA... good luck with that bro

[bronco67]

So what Grape is saying is that non-thinking, ignorant conservatives have all the answers. Like trickle down economics.

[mineistaken]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

in other words you prefer to post unsupported facts and liberal fantasies as proof or your ideological understandings of the USA... good luck with that bro

Usually smart people grow out liberal bullshit when they grow up. We will see if/when he passes that naive phase

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by bronco67

So what Grape is saying is that non-thinking, ignorant conservatives have all the answers. Like trickle down economics.

So, let's say a big company opens in an area...they hire 1000 people with good salaries.

Those thousand people now can afford to buy more things. So they spend more on nicer clothing. Go out to dinner more often. Go to the movies. Maybe buy a new car from a local dealer, etc.

Now the grocery store, the restaurants, the movie theater, clothing store, home improvement stores, local 7-11 store, etc., etc. are getting more business.
Matter of fact, new stores start to sprout up: a new cellphone store, a new video game store, a new Walmart, etc.

More jobs. More economic power.

Isn't that "trickle down" economics? It seems to make perfect sense to me. Where am I seeing things wrong on that?
I'm not "conservative", but I think that scenario works a helluva lot better than the current record numbers of people on food stamps and/or working part time jobs as companies try to avoid the onerous regulations of "ObamaCare"

Are you implying that I am "non-thinking and ignorant" because I have seen what happens when business thrives in cities?
And I have seen what happens when "thinking and enlightened" "liberal" economic policies are in place for decades: Detroit, Chicago, Oakland are just a few of those places.

I just don't see how you can look at things and not see with your own eyes that when business thrives in a community...the money does indeed "trickle down". How could it not?

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by bronco67

So what Grape is saying is that non-thinking, ignorant conservatives have all the answers. Like trickle down economics.

yeah Sowell is a dumb ass for sure... every post you make, I realize that you are dumber and fucking dumber

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell

He is currently Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. Sowell was born in North Carolina, but grew up in Harlem, New York. He dropped out of high school and served in the United States Marine Corps during the Korean War. He received a Bachelor's degree from Harvard University in 1958 and a Master's degree from Columbia University in 1959. In 1968, he earned his Doctorate in Economics from the University of Chicago.

Sowell has served on the faculties of several universities, including Cornell University and University of California, Los Angeles. He has also worked for think tanks such as the Urban Institute. Since 1980, he has worked at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He writes from a conservative and classical liberal perspective, advocating free market economics and has written more than thirty books. He is a National Humanities Medal winner.

BTW your girl friend Hillary Clinton just stated in a speech that business do NOT create jobs and that's how she knows trickle down economics don't work

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Robbie

So, let's say a big company opens in an area...they hire 1000 people with good salaries.

Those thousand people now can afford to buy more things. So they spend more on nicer clothing. Go out to dinner more often. Go to the movies. Maybe buy a new car from a local dealer, etc.

Now the grocery store, the restaurants, the movie theater, clothing store, home improvement stores, local 7-11 store, etc., etc. are getting more business.
Matter of fact, new stores start to sprout up: a new cellphone store, a new video game store, a new Walmart, etc.

More jobs. More economic power.

Isn't that "trickle down" economics? It seems to make perfect sense to me. Where am I seeing things wrong on that?
I'm not "conservative", but I think that scenario works a helluva lot better than the current record numbers of people on food stamps and/or working part time jobs as companies try to avoid the onerous regulations of "ObamaCare"

Are you implying that I am "non-thinking and ignorant" because I have seen what happens when business thrives in cities?
And I have seen what happens when "thinking and enlightened" "liberal" economic policies are in place for decades: Detroit, Chicago, Oakland are just a few of those places.

I just don't see how you can look at things and not see with your own eyes that when business thrives in a community...the money does indeed "trickle down". How could it not?

Robbie in this guys mind a business can only thrive by stealing the poor's money

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

Robbie in this guys mind a business can only thrive by stealing the poor's money

I think that the politicians and media put out a message to shape our opinions and ideas.

And it's very effective.

I look for results and take what the news and politicians say with a grain of salt. They are all out for power and money anyway.

Common sense tells you that when a company opens a business and hires people...it's a GOOD thing.

And every economist in the world will tell you that companies thriving and hiring people is THE economic driving force.

So labels are thown out like "trickle down economics". That name came from humorist Will Rogers making fun of FDR's "New Deal" and saying the rich were pissing down on the poor. (ironic isn't it that the name "trickle down economics" actually was a joke about FDR and his Democrat economic policy lol...even though most of us think of Ronald Reagan...even though what he espoused was SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS)

Some Democrat economic scholars say it has been "disproved" when it "failed" to work in 1890. lol

The main reason that faux-liberal folks enjoy using that term derisively (and incorrectly), is from Keynesian Economists railing against tax breaks for the wealthy and calling that "trickle down economics" (even though...as I said it was actually a term invented by Will Rogers about FDR and the "New Deal")

I've never thought that "giving" tax breaks to the wealthy (in other words not TAKING as much of their money) created jobs.
But conversely, I don't see why the federal govt. should have carte blanche to take people's money just because they can.
I don't think the U.S. govt. TAKING more money from wealthy people creates any jobs or helps the economy either. It just gives career politicians and bureaucrats more power.

The only thing that truly helps the economy is when business thrives and the govt. created environment is conducive to growth of business and the consequential employment that brings.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I think that the politicians and media put out a message to shape our opinions and ideas.

And it's very effective.

I look for results and take what the news and politicians say with a grain of salt. They are all out for power and money anyway.

Common sense tells you that when a company opens a business and hires people...it's a GOOD thing.

And every economist in the world will tell you that companies thriving and hiring people is THE economic driving force.

So labels are thown out like "trickle down economics". That name came from humorist Will Rogers making fun of FDR's "New Deal" and saying the rich were pissing down on the poor. (ironic isn't it that the name "trickle down economics" actually was a joke about FDR and his Democrat economic policy lol...even though most of us think of Ronald Reagan...even though what he espoused was SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS)

Some Democrat economic scholars say it has been "disproved" when it "failed" to work in 1890. lol

The main reason that faux-liberal folks like to use that term derisively is from Keynesian Economists rail against tax breaks for the wealthy and call that "trickle down economics"

I've never thought that "giving" tax breaks to the wealthy (in other words not TAKING as much of their money) created jobs.
But conversely, I don't see why the federal govt. should have carte blanche to take people's money just because they can either.
I don't think the U.S. govt. TAKING more money from wealthy people creates any jobs or helps the economy either.

The only thing that truly helps the economy is when business thrives and the govt. created environment is conducive to growth of business and the consequential employment that brings.

the issue to me is politicians don't run businesses and have no idea how to handle money or use budgets... most of the crap these guys cook up is 'theories' that they are not held accountable for when they don't work... Robbie listen to the audio book I suggested for MP... should be interesting to you

[arock10]

Originally Posted by bronco67

So what Grape is saying is that non-thinking, ignorant conservatives have all the answers. Like trickle down economics.

That's what I gathered too

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by bronco67

So what Grape is saying is that non-thinking, ignorant conservatives have all the answers. Like trickle down economics.

regardless, as a person with the ability to form logical thoughts and such, wouldn't you agree it's important to read/understand both sides of an argument?

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by arock10

That's what I gathered too

wow, you're just as stupid as your dumb fuck boyfriend... so are you going to stalk all my post now with 3rd grade insults as well?

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Robbie

So, let's say a big company opens in an area...they hire 1000 people with good salaries.

Those thousand people now can afford to buy more things. So they spend more on nicer clothing. Go out to dinner more often. Go to the movies. Maybe buy a new car from a local dealer, etc.

Now the grocery store, the restaurants, the movie theater, clothing store, home improvement stores, local 7-11 store, etc., etc. are getting more business.
Matter of fact, new stores start to sprout up: a new cellphone store, a new video game store, a new Walmart, etc.

More jobs. More economic power.

Isn't that "trickle down" economics? It seems to make perfect sense to me. Where am I seeing things wrong on that?
I'm not "conservative", but I think that scenario works a helluva lot better than the current record numbers of people on food stamps and/or working part time jobs as companies try to avoid the onerous regulations of "ObamaCare"

Are you implying that I am "non-thinking and ignorant" because I have seen what happens when business thrives in cities?
And I have seen what happens when "thinking and enlightened" "liberal" economic policies are in place for decades: Detroit, Chicago, Oakland are just a few of those places.

I just don't see how you can look at things and not see with your own eyes that when business thrives in a community...the money does indeed "trickle down". How could it not?

That isn't trickle down economics that Republicans push.. What you described is a basic economy that grows due to supply and demand.


What the right wingers push, is that by taxing rich guys less it will equate to so called trickle down economics and it's been shown over and over that it doesn't work.

The truth is, tax plays only a small role in what businesses do, too much is of course bad, but what we pay in the US is nothing compared to other countries or even what was paid in the past here. Supply and demand is what grows or reduces the economy and it's silly to think the economy will always grow as a rule.


The simple fact is more money in the pockets of the middle class is what grew this country to what it is today. A rich guy that makes a billon a year might buy a couple cars or a luxury house or two. Meanwhile split that billion a year across a few thousand middle class people and suddenly it's thousands of cars and houses being bought..

This is why the theory of less tax = trickle down = bull shit, because it assumes that all that money that would have gone to taxes gets put into business and not someone's investment account..

[Robbie]

If you read all I wrote Crockett, you'll see that I'm in agreement.

Not taking more of wealthy people's money doesn't create new jobs.
And conversely neither does TAKING more of their money.

What creates jobs (as I said), is when govt. nurtures an environment that is favorable to business growth. That way you get new jobs, new spending, and build a middle class.

And as I also said (that I guess you didn't read)..."Trickle Down Economics" is a phrase invented by Will Rogers to criticize Democrat President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "New Deal" which Rogers described as "Trickle Down Economics" and "The rich pissing down on the poor"

Also keep in mind that comparing us to other countries and saying: "We pay less than they do in taxes" is just kinda missing the point. We also have the worlds largest economy. And this country has the best chance of "making it" when you start a business.
See? We DON'T want to be like the countries who have failed to drive business.

Why the heck would you even want us to emulate failed policy in any way, shape, or form? Let's go with what works instead.

[arock10]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

wow, you're just as stupid as your dumb fuck boyfriend... so are you going to stalk all my post now with 3rd grade insults as well?

What? I said I agreed with him. Sorry you took offense. Might want to look in a mirror to see who is using the third grade insults

[mineistaken]

All GFY's leftist-liberal-anti quality (pro ripping of hard workers and redistributing to lazies) society preaching elite gathered in this thread

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by Robbie

I think that the politicians and media put out a message to shape our opinions and ideas.

And it's very effective.

I look for results and take what the news and politicians say with a grain of salt. They are all out for power and money anyway.

Common sense tells you that when a company opens a business and hires people...it's a GOOD thing.

And every economist in the world will tell you that companies thriving and hiring people is THE economic driving force.

So labels are thown out like "trickle down economics". That name came from humorist Will Rogers making fun of FDR's "New Deal" and saying the rich were pissing down on the poor. (ironic isn't it that the name "trickle down economics" actually was a joke about FDR and his Democrat economic policy lol...even though most of us think of Ronald Reagan...even though what he espoused was SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS)

Some Democrat economic scholars say it has been "disproved" when it "failed" to work in 1890. lol

The main reason that faux-liberal folks enjoy using that term derisively (and incorrectly), is from Keynesian Economists railing against tax breaks for the wealthy and calling that "trickle down economics" (even though...as I said it was actually a term invented by Will Rogers about FDR and the "New Deal")

I've never thought that "giving" tax breaks to the wealthy (in other words not TAKING as much of their money) created jobs.
But conversely, I don't see why the federal govt. should have carte blanche to take people's money just because they can.
I don't think the U.S. govt. TAKING more money from wealthy people creates any jobs or helps the economy either. It just gives career politicians and bureaucrats more power.

The only thing that truly helps the economy is when business thrives and the govt. created environment is conducive to growth of business and the consequential employment that brings.

Robbie and everyone(except **********, he can't comprehend complex topics), check out how the dems/libarals make race an issue:

Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu?s comments that part of President Barack Obama?s unpopularity in her state is due to his racial animus.
In an interview Thursday with NBC News? Chuck Todd, the Democratic incumbent was asked why Obama has such poor job performance ratings in Louisiana. After naming energy policy and his handling of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, Landrieu brought up the South?s historical issues with race.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/1...14-112372.html

[dyna mo]

and by complex, I mean 1+ variables.